Peter who works at a gokart manufacturing company Parts for

Peter, who works at a go-kart manufacturing company, Parts for Karts Co., became aware after talking with co-workers that he was being paid
substantially less than workers with the same experience and level of seniority. After noticing this, he decided to pursue a lawsuit against
Parts for Karts Co. for wage discrimination. However, when Peter was hired, he had signed a binding arbitration clause in his work contract.
When Parts for Karts moved to compel arbitration, a state court granted its motion. During arbitration, the arbitrator decided that Parts for Karts
had not discriminated against Peter, and that Peter should pay for any lawyer fees that Parts for Karts had incurred.

But what if the facts in this case changed? For each fact change below, select whether you would agree that the fact change would affect the
result of the arbitration agreement.

1. Peter requests that mediation be pursued in lieu of arbitration. But Parts for Karts desires only arbitration, and will not tolerate mediation.

2. The arbitrator displayed bias and exceeded her authority.

3. Peter is discontent with the decision of the arbitrator and decides to appeal to a district court.

4. Instead of signing a binding arbitration clause in the original work contract, Peter and his contractor commit to a Submission Agreement.

Solution

1. Peter requests that mediation be pursued in lieu of arbitration. But parts for Karts desire only arbitration and will not tolerate mediation

Both parties can go for arbitration because they have signed a binding arbitration clause